Rwnix404
Hello, I was concerned that you may need some assistance in location the news articles mentioned in the discussion on Talk:Jenny Durkan. So I am compiling detailed instructions: 1) Get access to a computer, cellular telephone or other device with access to the world wide web. 2) Turn the computer, cellular phone or device on by locating the on button and press down on it. 3) Wait for the computer, cellular telephone or devise to full turn on. If a login is required, use the alphanumerical keypad to enter in your password where the password is blank. 4) Once you have full access to the computer, cellular telephone or devise, locate the icon that will give you full access to the world wide web (internet). This icon may be called Safari, Firefox, Internet Explorer, etc. Or it may simply be a blank white bar with the google logo near it. 5) Once you are "logged in" to the world wide web, find the url bar. In this bar type in "https://www.newsbank.com/" . This will take you to the News Bank website. 6) On the webpage you will see a tab that says "Log in through your library". Click on that link. 7) You will now see a new webpage. Click on the green tab that says "Login to NewsBank Resources" 8) A login username and password will appear. If you have access to NewsBank in this manner, type in your username and password and skip ahead to step number 13. If you cannot, go to step number 9. 9) Go to the website of your local library. For example https://www.spl.org/ (which is the example being used here). 10) Click on the "Online Resources" tab, which will produce a drop down menu. In that menu click on "Newspapers and Magazines". 11) Scroll down to the "Seattle Times (1895-current)" tab and click on it. 12) A new webpage will appear with login username and password prompts. Use your own personal library card and pin number to log in, but do not share those numbers with anyone. 13) You now have access to News Bank. A white bar will appear in the middle of the screen. Click on it and type in whatever you would like to read, then click "Search". For example the name of an article "Opening accounts clash at trial of police officer" or the name of the journalist "Diane Brooks" or perhaps "Robert Eric Whidbey". 14)Read the article. Then repeat the process from step 13 for all of the other articles. 15) Go to "Talk:Jenny Durkan" and share what you have discovered.
I hope that these instructions are thorough and helpful. Please share with Usertalk:Drmies since I do not have access. And don't forget Wikipedia:Wikipedia should be fun. Cheers.--174.21.174.34 (talk) 02:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- You spend all that time just to write a bunch of patronizing nonsense. After four editors have already proven you wrong. Damn. Cheers to you indeed. Rwnix404 (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Its just a bit of lighthearted, silly humor to lighten the mood. I apologize if you feel patronized. Are you going to read the articles and report back? Also on Talk:Jenny Durkan#Deletion of controversies you wrote: "It is their job to make up whatever argument they think will get their client off." Are you suggesting that Durkan was making up her arguments? In which case, why am I the one being accused on fabricating this article, clearly you believe that Durkan was the one fabricating?--174.21.179.79 (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- And still he squirms and slithers like a snake. No seriously, cheers to you. You are impressive in your devious efforts. Rwnix404 (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Here, I'll help you. Here's a copied and pasted version of one of the articles. You'll have to find it on News Bank to verify that I am not fabricating anything, and I challenge you to do so. Please let me know what your thoughts are. And please consider that 28 years ago two teenage girls were accused of lying. They were children:
"EX-OFFICER ACQUITTED OF MOLESTATION CHARGES Newspaper August 20, 1992 | Seattle Times, The (WA) Author: JOLAYNE HOUTZ | Page: D1 | Section: NORTHWEST 560 Words | Readability: Lexile: 1190, grade level(s): 10 11-12
EVERETT - A former Everett police officer was acquitted yesterday of charges that he molested a 15-year-old girl during a traffic stop and offered to drop a traffic ticket if she and a friend would have sex with him.
Jurors deliberated about 2 1/2 hours before finding Robert Eric Whidbey, 30, not guilty of third-degree child molestation and two counts of first-degree extortion.
"We were hopeful once the jury was able to evaluate the case that this would be the result," said Jenny Durkan, one of the attorneys who represented Whidbey. "We're absolutely ecstatic."
Whidbey was the victim of an intricate web of lies created by the families of the two girls, now 16 years old, she said. Two relatives in particular had had problems with law enforcement and had reasons to hate police. "The story just kept expanding and changing" each time it was told, Durkan said.
Those inconsistencies helped raise questions in jurors' minds, said Deputy Prosecutor David Hiltner.
"I knew this would be a very difficult case to win," Hiltner said. "The defense was very good at creating a reasonable doubt as to his guilt."
In his closing argument, Hiltner said the girls were victims of "a predator hiding behind a badge" when Whidbey stopped them in the 2100 block of Broadway in Everett on Oct. 23. They were driving a car with a burned-out taillight, and neither girl had a driver's license.
Whidbey was accused of touching the 15-year-old passenger between her legs while frisking her and suggesting he would drop the traffic ticket if the girls had sex with him.
Whidbey admitted telling the girls if his supervisor came by and told them, " `Stand on your head,' stand on your head. If he says, `Jump,' say, `How high?' If he says, `Get in the back seat and have sex,' get in the back seat and have sex."
Whidbey then said he was just joking, but Hiltner said, "It's clear he wanted them to remember that stop so he could come back later and collect on those (sexual) services."
Whidbey's attorneys said in trying to act cool with the teenagers, Whidbey made crude and inappropriate comments.
"He broke the standards of appropriate conduct, but he did not break the law," defense attorney Jeff Robinson said. "Don't punish him for the lies that have been told in this courtroom."
During the five-day trial, Whidbey's attorneys attacked the credibility of the girls and their families. The girls changed their stories a number of times about whether they were searched, handcuffed or propositioned by Whidbey, Robinson said. The case was poorly investigated by police, who didn't look into the backgrounds of witnesses and didn't recognize inconsistencies in their stories, Durkan said.
Whidbey never testified, but in a statement to police, he admitted making one of the girls put her hands on top of his patrol car so he could search her. However, Robinson said Whidbey was pushed into making that admission in an untaped interview and didn't really remember any search.
Everett police fired Whidbey less than a month after the incident. Officials could not be reached yesterday to comment on whether Whidbey could be rehired, but his attorneys said it was unlikely he would want to return to the department.
Whidbey, who lives in Everett, has been working at a temporary job that is not in law enforcement, Durkan said, and is not sure whether he wants to return to police work." --174.21.179.79 (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oh god no, no I'm not...I'm not going to stoop to this level with a person who won't listen to reasonable arguments...ah shit I'm doing it. NO! Listen. This is not a controversy in the life of Jenny Durkan. This is a made up controversy in the mind of you. You do not get to decide what is a controversy as a wikipedia editor. Society does. Her actions where not controversial then. And they remain uncontroversial to this day. The trial was controversial. These articles, as I knew they would, only mention Durkan and her fellow attorneys as footnotes to the more important story of the actions of the police officer. Some don't even mention Durkan. No articles have been written criticizing Durkan over this. The only criticism is coming from you. This is the last time I'm going to address this. If you do not listen to reason and continue to reverse my edits on this matter we're going to have to have this settled, and I don't think your going to win. Rwnix404 (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
August 2020
edit
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.